MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973421361 · doi:10.1109/icca.2007.4376504

Online Identification and Alignment of MIMO Cross Directional Controlled Processes Using Second Order Statistics

2007· article· en· W1973421361 on OpenAlexafffund
Fazel Farahmand, Guy A. Dumont, M.S. Davies, Philip D. Loewen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDecorrelationMIMOComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)AutocorrelationBlind signal separationControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmNoise (video)ActuatorChannel (broadcasting)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the factors influencing the performance of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) systems such as paper machines, accurate spatial alignment of the actuators with their corresponding measurement points is a key issue in cross directional (CD) control. This mapping is a stochastic, non-linear and time-varying problem. Most current methods of alignment require a manual open-loop bump test. Several actuators are excited to perform the bump test, then the observed peaks are assigned to the excited actuators. This paper uses the second-order statistical technique of the blind source separation methods to make the transition from a manual, open-loop bump test to closed-loop adaptive online mapping. This procedure estimates the mixing matrix by spatial decorrelation of the noise and source signal. The mixing matrix is a function of input autocorrelation input and output cross-correlation. The main advantage of this method comes from the fact that we have direct access to the source signals and outputs. The method's robustness in cases of spatially colored noise makes it applicable to the CD control of paper machines.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207